Re: [Chicken-users] functions for hash tables

[Ed Watkeys]

On Jan 26, 2005, at 2:41 PM, address@hidden wrote:

> Hi all.
>
>
> Here is a useful comparison of hash tables in different Scheme
> implementations (great work, Shiro):

I think there are two ideals to aspire to:

(1) Does Chicken let people accurately guess procedure names given an 
understanding of basic concepts and terms?

(2) Does Chicken let people apply their knowledge of (a) other Schemes, 
(b) other languages, (c) operating systems, err, UNIX?

Scheme has list-ref, therefore hash-table-ref, not hash-table-get, is 
the way to go according to (1). One could argue that given (2), 
hash-table-get is the way to go, if most other Scheme implementations 
use hash-table-get. Insanity awaits those who follow (2) at the expense 
of (1). Terminological precision is an imperative if we hope to avoid 
the PERLification* of Chicken or Scheme in general.

Ed

* The standard libraries of Python and probably every other free 
high-level language in use today are pretty much as bad as PERL's in 
terms of poor adherence to naming standards, but I give credit to PERL 
(and CPAN) for being the first to achieve this state.